Donald Trump

[william.scherk]

Here's some graphic in a good way perspective on pre-Iowa boasts and hoopla. From the way wonkish blog FrontloadHQ. Below this image on Josh Putnam's 2016 Primary Calendar entry are some condensed details on all coming heats in the rates. It is apparent that a whole lot of pain is going to go down on Super Tuesday, the biggest mass on the map:

Now, for more fun, look back and forth between the two maps and see contours of the delegate numbers game.

-- yup, no one is counting birds in the bag just yet. And the first crows to be strangled on February 2nd are still flying free. The strangled crow metaphor almost turns into numbers, but no. Just 30 delegates, split proportionally

For a different graphic representation, with details such as delegate numbers and percentages in serried rows over time, this is from Red State's work Previewing The GOP Presidential Primary Calendar | Backloaded To Stop An Insurgent, from last October.

The page also contains details on winner-take all, proportion, hybrid schemes in various states.

Edited December 29, 2015 by william.scherk

[Marc]

You're peaking too soon, Marc.

You could be correct !!!!

I feel it man , I feel it coming real soon .

I really really believe with my entire soul that Trump does not get POTUS , does not get the Nomination , and does not get more than 1 out of 4 states . If I am right here , then I think he pulls out . If I am wrong there , then I think he pulls out before the slaughter on Super Tuesday .

[Marc]

You're peaking too soon, Marc.

Marc,

Wise words above.

I would hate to slaughter some crows before the appointed hour.

Michael

Off topic but I just noticed that Brant , Adam and MSK each have 20k+ posts !!!!!

Curious if anyone else has more ? Or close to you 3 ?

Just curious , never noticed that before .

[william.scherk]

Off topic but I just noticed that Brant , Adam and MSK each have 20k+ posts !!!!!

Curious if anyone else has more ? Or close to you 3 ?

Just curious , never noticed that before .

I cracked the top ten list today! I am usually not even on the board, day to day. And I am so far behind the top three I fear for posterity. Marc, the full list of all-timeTop Posters is here. I took this screenshot from the day's chart-topper list, here. I coulda been a contender if I used more one-liners. I wuz rawbed.

[Marc]

Good night Objectivist Living , Good night Donald Trump , Good night President Rubio ,

[Marc]

Off topic but I just noticed that Brant , Adam and MSK each have 20k+ posts !!!!!

Curious if anyone else has more ? Or close to you 3 ?

Just curious , never noticed that before .

I cracked the top ten list today! I am usually not even on the board, day to day. And I am so far behind the top three I fear for posterity. Marc, the full list of all-timeTop Posters is here. I took this screenshot from the day's chart-topper list, here. I coulda been a contender if I used more one-liners. I wuz rawbed.

If DT stays in the race past Super Tuesday , we will be #1 and #2

So no chance for that !

Ba da Bing !

Bazinggaaaaaaaaaa

[Brant Gaede]

You're peaking too soon, Marc.

Marc,

Wise words above.

I would hate to slaughter some crows before the appointed hour.

Michael

Off topic but I just noticed that Brant , Adam and MSK each have 20k+ posts !!!!!

Curious if anyone else has more ? Or close to you 3 ?

Just curious , never noticed that before .

Hey. It's not me. It's several computers.

--The Singularity

[Selene]

Shot across Evita's bow...and The Donald uses the New York Times cannon...

In pursuing this line of attack, Mr. Trump appears to be taking a page from the playbook of his former political adviser Roger Stone. Mr. Stone, a veteran Republican strategist who worked for Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, published a book earlier this year titled “The Clintons’ War on Women” in which he accuses Mr. Clinton of being a serial philanderer and a rapist who he compared to the disgraced comedian Bill Cosby.

Remember Evita's husband's comment in 1992 - You get two when you vote for me...

“Donald Trump’s words are demeaning, his policies are just as destructive,” Ms. Reynolds said. “Hillary Clinton will continue to stand up to Donald Trump and all the Republicans who try to rip away the progress we have made.”

The moral equivalency fallacy is played immediately by Evita's Amazon Warrior Division...

Mr. Trump has faced his own allegations of mistreating women. Most recently he criticized the appearance of Carly Fiorina, a Republican opponent, and Rosie O’Donnell, a comedian with whom he has publicly feuded. In July, The Daily Beast reported that Mr. Trump’s first wife, Ivana, said in their divorce deposition that he once raped her. She later disavowed that allegation.

See Bill's punching and raping one woman ALLEGEDLY, dropping his pants and saying kiss it with another which cost him his law license for five (5) years and other "marks" on his record and various other allegations from more than five (5) women is equal to his verbal comment in a debate format on a national cable broadcast.

See, those are equal, aren't they?

A...

[Marc]

You're peaking too soon, Marc.

Marc,

Wise words above.

I would hate to slaughter some crows before the appointed hour.

Michael

Off topic but I just noticed that Brant , Adam and MSK each have 20k+ posts !!!!!

Curious if anyone else has more ? Or close to you 3 ?

Just curious , never noticed that before .

Hey. It's not me. It's several computers.

--The Singularity

Hahhaahha !!!!! With MSK leading the troops , and his trusted Generals you Brant and The Adam , throw in some William to keep things on point ( the oversight committee ) , and my attitude - I think we will never need Singularity !!!

[Marc]

Shot across Evita's bow...and The Donald uses the New York Times cannon...

In pursuing this line of attack, Mr. Trump appears to be taking a page from the playbook of his former political adviser Roger Stone. Mr. Stone, a veteran Republican strategist who worked for Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, published a book earlier this year titled “The Clintons’ War on Women” in which he accuses Mr. Clinton of being a serial philanderer and a rapist who he compared to the disgraced comedian Bill Cosby.

Remember Evita's husband's comment in 1992 - You get two when you vote for me...

“Donald Trump’s words are demeaning, his policies are just as destructive,” Ms. Reynolds said. “Hillary Clinton will continue to stand up to Donald Trump and all the Republicans who try to rip away the progress we have made.”

The moral equivalency fallacy is played immediately by Evita's Amazon Warrior Division...

Mr. Trump has faced his own allegations of mistreating women. Most recently he criticized the appearance of Carly Fiorina, a Republican opponent, and Rosie O’Donnell, a comedian with whom he has publicly feuded. In July, The Daily Beast reported that Mr. Trump’s first wife, Ivana, said in their divorce deposition that he once raped her. She later disavowed that allegation.

See Bill's punching and raping one woman ALLEGEDLY, dropping his pants and saying kiss it with another which cost him his law license for five (5) years and other "marks" on his record and various other allegations from more than five (5) women is equal to his verbal comment in a debate format on a national cable broadcast.

See, those are equal, aren't they?

A...

Respectfully , I understand your valid points but the issue is is that this will be a war . Right may not win , Clintons don't lose . They are very good in war .

Trump has never gone to war .

Not this way MSK .

DT is well aware , hence .... await the much expected departure very shortly

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

And The Cause? Fuck The Cause. The game is power. For all politicians. No exceptions. The Cause is merely a story for the voters to dream a little and cover the real motivation of the politicians.

The Cause is ... Trump? The Trump Cause is just a story for voters to dream on? That sounds almost right ... if a bit too simplified.

William,

I wanted to mention this when I saw it, but it got buried.

I am not fighting for The Cause with Trump. I want him to have power. Raw naked political power, the kind where he gets to determine if the government kills people or lets them live, if the government confiscates their stuff or lets them keep it, if the government wrecks people's lives or not, if the government takes from some people, keeps most of the plunder and gives the rest to others.

See? No illusions.

Nobody ever says that, but that is the game everybody plays. That is what all candidates are after.

All of them.

You mused that The Cause for me might be Trump. No. The Cause is "Make America Great Again."

To me, that cause is just a marketing slogan. America, to me, is already great. Troubled right now, but still great.

So why do I want Trump to have power? Because the power I described above is there for all the candidates. Somebody is going to get it. Obama certainly uses it in the manner I described. I can't do anything about the existence of that power except bitch.

But I can look at the candidates who have wielded power before and see how they have acted. Trump has wielded power most of his life and he has used it for productive purposes. He has stayed away from war and armed conflicts.

He couldn't have had the government kill folks before, you might ask? So he never had that kind of power?

Heh.

Just because the source of power in politics is the government, that doesn't mean there are no other sources of real knuckle-crunching clout. The construction business--and the gambling business!--is permeated with thugs and their organizations. Trump got along with all of them just fine. (To be fair, there are lots of good people, too.) Getting a person "taken care of" is not complicated among those folks. Yet there are no semi-reliable rumors of people he had smoked to get them out of his way or anything like that. He made the bad guys build buildings.

Try it and see how easy that is.

Trump did that all his life. Based on that behavior, I imagine he will do the same with government power.

So this is not about The Cause. It's about power and the kind of person who I want to wield it.

I'll deal with The Cause after Trump cleans out the government stables and fires a bunch of morons. (There's a Convention of the States on the horizon.)

btw - Government power in the hands of morons can be a terribly dangerous thing.

Just look around at the world right now to see what I mean.

And don't think Trump supporters don't know all of what I just said. They do. That's what excites them.

Michael

[PDS]

And The Cause? Fuck The Cause. The game is power. For all politicians. No exceptions. The Cause is merely a story for the voters to dream a little and cover the real motivation of the politicians.

The Cause is ... Trump? The Trump Cause is just a story for voters to dream on? That sounds almost right ... if a bit too simplified.

William,

I wanted to mention this when I saw it, but it got buried.

I am not fighting for The Cause with Trump. I want him to have power. Raw naked political power, the kind where he gets to determine if the government kills people or lets them live, if the government confiscates their stuff or lets them keep it, if the government wrecks people's lives or not, if the government takes from some people, keeps most of the plunder and gives the rest to others.

See? No illusions.

Nobody ever says that, but that is the game everybody plays. That is what all candidates are after.

All of them.

You mused that The Cause for me might be Trump. No. The Cause is "Make America Great Again."

To me, that cause is just a marketing slogan. America, to me, is already great. Troubled right now, but still great.

So why do I want Trump to have power? Because the power I described above is there for all the candidates. Somebody is going to get it. Obama certainly uses it in the manner I described. I can't do anything about the existence of that power except bitch.

But I can look at the candidates who have wielded power before and see how they have acted. Trump has wielded power most of his life and he has used it for productive purposes. He has stayed away from war and armed conflicts.

He couldn't have had the government kill folks before, you might ask? So he never had that kind of power?

Heh.

Just because the source of power in politics is the government, that doesn't mean there are no other sources of real knuckle-crunching clout. The construction business--and the gambling business!--is permeated with thugs and their organizations. Trump got along with all of them just fine. (To be fair, there are lots of good people, too.) Getting a person "taken care of" is not complicated among those folks. Yet there are no semi-reliable rumors of people he had smoked to get them out of his way or anything like that. He made the bad guys build buildings.

Try it and see how easy that is.

Trump did that all his life. Based on that behavior, I imagine he will do the same with government power.

So this is not about The Cause. It's about power and the kind of person who I want to wield it.

I'll deal with The Cause after Trump cleans out the government stables and fires a bunch of morons. (There's a Convention of the States on the horizon.)

btw - Government power in the hands of morons can be a terribly dangerous thing.

Just look around at the world right now to see what I mean.

And don't think Trump supporters don't know all of what I just said. They do. That's what excites them.

Michael

MSK: I would dare say your post clarify things greatly: you like Trump because he is your kind of tyrant. Okay.

[Peter]

Michael wrote about a President Trump: . . . . I want him to have power . . . . No illusions . . . . That is what all candidates are after. All of them . . . . No. The Cause is "Make America Great Again." . . . . But I can look at the candidates who have wielded power before and see how they have acted. Trump has wielded power most of his life and he has used it for productive purposes. He has stayed away from war and armed conflicts.
end quotes

Do you trust him? That is the dilemma for voters, because Trump won’t change if he wins the Presidency. What kind of person is he? Is he emotional and quick to anger? Oh, yeah. I watched him seethe and take it when Obama castigated him at a political gathering, as Trump sat being filmed in the audience (the criticism was about Trump’s assertion that Obama was not a proven U.S. citizen. Remember that? Was it in 2012?)

And when the libertarian John Stossell confronted him about trying to evict a widow from her home using eminent domain, you could tell he was royally pissed, but he mostly kept his temper. At one rally he said he would bomb the SHIT out of ISIS. Would any other modern candidate use that kind of language?

He will attack Hillary’s women’s rights stance by using Ms. Clinton’s defense of Bill Clinton’s philandering and molestation of women. At the time she said the victims were lying bimbos and the attacks were the fabrications of a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. The truth did not matter to her. Trump will get very personal with Old Hickory Clinton as he did with Megan Kelly and Carly Fiorina. In a Trump vs. Clinton run we would have to watch Hillary age and melt like the Wicked Witch of the West right before our eyes. How horrible.

On second thought . . . hmmm. I just went to the Trump site and asked them to tell us which government programs Trump will cut to balance the budget as he has promised. When you first get to the site a tag asking you to donate pops up. I donated to Cruz recently but if Donald can win a few primaries and Cruz cannot I may switch my monetary support to a winner.
Peter

[PDS]

Michael wrote about a President Trump: . . . . I want him to have power . . . . No illusions . . . . That is what all candidates are after. All of them . . . . No. The Cause is "Make America Great Again." . . . . But I can look at the candidates who have wielded power before and see how they have acted. Trump has wielded power most of his life and he has used it for productive purposes. He has stayed away from war and armed conflicts.

end quotes

Do you trust him? That is the dilemma for voters, because Trump won’t change if he wins the Presidency. What kind of person is he? Is he emotional and quick to anger? Oh, yeah. I watched him seethe and take it when Obama castigated him at a political gathering, as Trump sat being filmed in the audience (the criticism was about Trump’s assertion that Obama was not a proven U.S. citizen. Remember that? Was it in 2012?)

And when the libertarian John Stossell confronted him about trying to evict a widow from her home using eminent domain, you could tell he was royally pissed, but he mostly kept his temper. At one rally he said he would bomb the SHIT out of ISIS. Would any other modern candidate use that kind of language?

He will attack Hillary’s women’s rights stance by using Ms. Clinton’s defense of Bill Clinton’s philandering and molestation of women. At the time she said the victims were lying bimbos and the attacks were the fabrications of a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. The truth did not matter to her. Trump will get very personal with Old Hickory Clinton as he did with Megan Kelly and Carly Fiorina. In a Trump vs. Clinton run we would have to watch Hillary age and melt like the Wicked Witch of the West right before our eyes. How horrible.

On second thought . . . hmmm. I just went to the Trump site and asked them to tell us which government programs Trump will cut to balance the budget as he has promised. When you first get to the site a tag asking you to donate pops up. I donated to Cruz recently but if Donald can win a few primaries and Cruz cannot I may switch my monetary support to a winner.

Peter

That's good Peter. Important to switch to the best potential tyrant if your guy starts losing some of the primaries.

[Peter]

PDS wrote: That's good Peter. Important to switch to the best potential tyrant if your guy starts losing some of the primaries.
end quote

I am so glad you facetiously agree. IF Trump appears to be getting the GOP nomination, I will vote for him, but only then. I will vote in the later, Maryland primary. Clingon must not be re-elected (joke) as co-president. The William F. Buckley rule is that one votes for the most conservative, ELECTABLE Republican. I agree. If Trump becomes President (assuming he wins the nomination, which he may not) then the work of liberty lovers everywhere must go into overtime, because as Ayn Rand knew; the threat to freedom comes from the supposed good guys. Is it better to be ruled by a fool or an enemy? Is that the choice? I don’t think Trump will be a fool, but I do worry about him expanding the power of the Presidency. Let’s listen to what he has to say. Less than a year to go.
Peter


A lecture presented at the TAS 2006 Summer Seminar, July 4, 2006, Chapman University, Orange, CA, by Barbara Branden.
One cannot avoid recognizing that we live in a very angry age. At one time, people spoke to “My worthy opponent” when addressing someone who disagreed with their views. That attitude of respecting differences has long disappeared. Today, in discussions of politics, of religion, of environmentalism, of war and peace, of abortion—of all the issues that concern and often divide us—we hear little but raised voices and enraged insults coming from all sides of every issue. Speak to an opponent of the Iraq war and suggest that it might have been a good idea—and a torrent of abuse washes over you. Say that Israel is morally superior to the Palestinians—and statistics about Israel’s supposed “atrocities” of the last 2,000 years fly furiously at your head. Say a kind word about George W. Bush—and you had better take to the hills at once.

Objectivists are by no means immune to this rage. On the contrary, I find it to be increasingly prevalent among Objectivists. We see everywhere—particularly on the Internet—the spectacle of supposed supporters of reason and free inquiry erupting in fury at the least provocation and hurling abuse at anyone who opposes—even questions—their convictions.

But what I call “Objectivist Rage” has a peculiar twist to it, unlikely to be found anywhere else except, paradoxically, in religion. It is almost always morally tinged. Those who question our ideas and those who oppose them, we are told, are not merely unintelligent, ignorant, uninformed; they are evil, they are moral monsters to be cast out and forever damned.

And that is what I want to discuss today: the immensely presumptuous moralizing, the wildly unjust condemnations, and the towering anger and outrage exhibited by so many Objectivists. I want to explain, as best I can identify it, why this happens—that is, what are the mistaken philosophical ideas that lead to it, and what appears to be the psychology of many of its practitioners. If we are to defend ourselves against it and prevent it from contaminating our own dealings with others, our first requirement is to understand it.

[Peter]

Who is most electable Republican in Real Clear Politics, as of today? Trump is the projected winner in New Hampshire, Nevada, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Michigan, Florida, (not Rubio or Jeb) Missouri, Ohio, (not Kasich. It’s Trump) and other states.

In Iowa it’s Cruz, Carson in Louisiana, and Huckabee in Mississippi. But they have no momentum. Trump has “mo.” I still hold out hope for Cruz but it doesn’t look like he will be our next President. As of now.

I agree with Jeb’s ad that Trump will not be able to insult his way to the Presidency. But the insults towards Hillary, if true or funny might help him in the polls. The tightrope for Trump to walk is to, not insult the supporters of other Republican candidates, so going after the Dem NOW is a brilliant strategy.

Would I be pretending enthusiasm, if as a Maryland delegate, I began to chant, “Trump, Trump, Trump” at the convention? What is a phenomenon to me is how myself and others can become fans of the ONE possibility who can advance our agenda. I do get emotional the closer it gets to November. McCain to a degree, was an embarrassment so I told myself, Peter, vote for Sarah. Mitt was better but I was glad Paul Ryan was on the ticket. Just kidding, sorta. And I will be glad if the menu is Trump for the entrée, with Rubio or Cruz, on the side. Too bad the meal doesn't come with two sides and a salad. Promised cabinet posts might liven up the dinner. Chicken and dumplings, $10.95, and one free, non-alcoholic drink free. Mmmmm.
Peter

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

MSK: I would dare say your post clarify things greatly: you like Trump because he is your kind of tyrant. Okay.

David,

That's one way to frame it, I suppose.

Look at the mess Obama the tyrant has done, or Bush the tyrant has done, or Clinton the tyrant has done, and so on.

I disagree with your core identification, though. These folks were not tyrants and neither will be Trump.

The quest for gobs of power does not necessarily result in tyranny, although the quest for it, and the exercise of it, always has the ugly side I described. I think fools ignore this ugly side, but that's their choice and their religion.

In the USA, there's a little thing called checks and balances. That keeps the formation of true tyrants at bay, not altruism or love or kumbaya (or snark ).

If you believe that someone seeking large-scale power is doing so for purely humanitarian reasons and has no notion of this negative stuff, that he or she would be horrified to think such things, I say have a good delusion. I'm sorry you feel I'm trying to pop your rose-colored bubble and you need to mischaracterize it as if I'm a tyranny-loving bad guy.

I have yet to meet such a person as the one you apparently believe in who pursues vast power for softhearted reasons. The closest I've ever heard of, I guess, would be someone Lord Acton might have had in mind when he wrote (in a letter to Mandell Creighton): "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." But I'm damned if I know who that pre-power saint might have been.

Back to frames. Rather than framing this as me being enamored of tyranny, I prefer a frame I read from George Smith.

If the only choice someone gives me is to cut off my leg or cut off my head, I'll keep my head. Now here's my addition. If I can get away with my leg, I'll take that, too. That's my frame for supporting Trump. I get to keep my head and my leg.

With the other candidates, I either lose my head, my leg, or both.

This has nothing to do with liking tyranny, as you imply.

Just because I'm having fun, especially lampooning those interested in my leg and head, that doesn't mean I like the choice.

btw - I don't speak for the others you so cavalierly accuse of loving tyranny (in addition to Me the Moral Monster all of a sudden), but I believe many would agree with me.

Apropos, which part of me are you interested in cutting off and taking home, my leg or my head?

Michael

[Peter]

Michael wrote: If you believe that someone seeking large-scale power is doing so for purely humanitarian reasons and has no notion of this negative stuff, that he or she would be horrified to think such things, I say have a good delusion.
end quote

Say it ain’t so, Ted. Mr. Cruz? Are you seeking large-scale power, for purely humanitarian reasons and do you have no notion of the negative stuff? Or are you just like all the rest, as Michael sayz? Please tell us the truth.

Don’t worry, fans of Rand. We will be on the lookout for phony political ads and the merely financial scams which brings up the subject of bad ads. Super Beta to shrink your prostate and stop that peeing in bed? It’s a scam. Can Previgen derived from jellyfish improve your memory? Remember the saying, “A jellyfish never forgets?” NO? Of course not, because a jellyfish doesn’t have a real memory to begin with so that is why it never forgets. Idiots. And that digital device with blinking lights that is supposed to improve joint health and reduce pain? Scams with blinking lights have been around at least since the 1950’s.

Political propoganda? I am on to it. They interviewed several tailgaters at the Army/Navy game and most of the filmed fans THEY SHOWED seemed to be a tad embarrassed to be supporting The Donald but agreed they would obey the orders from the Commander in Chief. When I feel 100 percent for Trump I will bring out my Trumpette. Just not yet. Hey, you hozers. It’s raining outside. I gotta do something with my time.
Peter

[william.scherk]

I'll deal with The Cause after Trump cleans out the government stables and fires a bunch of morons. (There's a Convention of the States on the horizon.)

Those will certainly be exciting times, if a Convention of the States (known also as an Article V Convention) comes together before we all die.

I don't know if Trump has weighed in yet, but several of his GOP competitors are on board, with caveats, from Kasich to Huckabee, according to this story in the Moonie Times.

A push by conservative activists for states to call a national convention to amend the U.S. Constitution has won the backing of several of the Republican presidential contenders, and one of the movement’s leaders said the process could get rolling next year if the candidates talk about it more.

Ohio Gov. John Kasich wants a convention for the express purpose of passing a balanced budget amendment. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida says he is open to a convention but fears a “runaway” assembly where delegates try for a wholesale rewrite of the Constitution — sort of what happened in 1787.

Advocates for a convention say the candidates need to start talking up the idea on the campaign trail.

“If it starts to become a serious presidential issue, we could get it done in 2016,” said Mark Meckler, president of Citizens for Self-Governance, a leading group pushing the effort.

I think a few of us here may be paying close attention to the Convention of the States issue over the years. I think Adam and Wolf. This article already linked-to above gives a good short history of efforts: "The Other Way To Amend The Constitution: The Article V Constitutional Convention Amendment Process, by James Kenneth Rogers.

It is 'on the horizon' in the same sense that the Moon can be on the horizon, I think. The map Wolf pasted above graphically represents the extent of current efforts for a single-issue Article V Convention on a Balanced Budget Amendment. This graphic is similar, but comes from IamAmerican.org's page.

I don't know how to gauge the likelihood of a first Article V convention in the nation's history. My better-informed colleagues will weigh in, no doubt.

I think that this threads most important point was made recently by William who thoroughly explained how polls need to be converted to votes and sometimes the difficulty in doing this .

I'll take Marc's compliment ... even though I don't know which recent post he may have in mind, or exactly which contest I was commenting on. Let's look at the latest aggregates from Real Clear Politics: Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina.

What do these numbers show us? Well, three things. Trump is either tied or right behind Cruz in Iowa, with its 30 delegates (which will be portioned out by percentage). Trump is on top in New Hampshire by what seems a comfortable margin of close to 20%, for 23 delegates. Trump is in the lead currently at near 15% over the nearest rival in South Carolina for 50 (the same day Nevada holds its GOP caucuses, which are complicated and will not give immediate tallies as in Iowa, for a further 30 delegates).

So, Marc, it looks like a toss-up in Iowa, with Trump far ahead in the other three states. Care to revise your confident assessments about the four early states? I don't think anyone should be surprised if the three of the first four contests are 'taken' by Trump, with Iowa the only present uncertainty.

It might not seem like a hill of beans, a mere five percent of GOP delegate totals, but by February 10th, there will be Momentum.

What does this say about Super Tuesday?

As I said, nothing is in the bag until the votes are in. Let's not count chickens until they ...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Those will certainly be exciting times, if a Convention of the States (known also as an Article V Convention) comes together before we all die.

I don't know if Trump has weighed in yet...

William,

Given Trump's proximity to Mark Levin (I know, I know, they had a dust-up the other day when Trump bashed Cruz, but it was a sneeze in a hurricane) and the circle of people around him, my gut tells me a Convention of the States may come sooner than anyone realizes.

Imagine if a sitting president gets behind a project like that. I honestly see Trump capable of pushing it.

I don't think he weighs in because that would be a huge distraction in campaigning. Like I said before, Trump thinks like a businessman, not a politician. He treats this election as a project with beginning, middle and end around a clear goal, not as a popularity contest or a soapbox to preach utopia.

And don't think a Convention of the States can't happen under him. I lived through something very similar in Brazil under José Sarney (see here). Brazil ended up with a mess of a constitution, but it was one done properly in convention. That convention would have never happened without Sarney (in my opinion). With all of Sarney's many defects--and there were many, that achievement goes to the grace side and almost outweighs all the rest.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ha!

 

"Minorities line up behind.....Donald Trump" #Trump2016 #MakeAmericaGreatAgain https://t.co/cEMKihLZbK pic.twitter.com/SxuutW2onm

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)

December 29, 2015

 

Granted, this poll has its own problems, but a poll is a poll is a poll...

 

Drip... drip... drip...

 

 

Michael

[Backlighting]

Ha!

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Granted, this poll has its own problems, but a poll is a poll is a poll...

Drip... drip... drip...

Michael

I saw that. As Spock would say: "fascinating".

[PDS]

MSK: I would dare say your post clarify things greatly: you like Trump because he is your kind of tyrant. Okay.

David,

That's one way to frame it, I suppose.

Look at the mess Obama the tyrant has done, or Bush the tyrant has done, or Clinton the tyrant has done, and so on.

I disagree with your core identification, though. These folks were not tyrants and neither will be Trump.

The quest for gobs of power does not necessarily result in tyranny, although the quest for it, and the exercise of it, always has the ugly side I described. I think fools ignore this ugly side, but that's their choice and their religion.

In the USA, there's a little thing called checks and balances. That keeps the formation of true tyrants at bay, not altruism or love or kumbaya (or snark ).

If you believe that someone seeking large-scale power is doing so for purely humanitarian reasons and has no notion of this negative stuff, that he or she would be horrified to think such things, I say have a good delusion. I'm sorry you feel I'm trying to pop your rose-colored bubble and you need to mischaracterize it as if I'm a tyranny-loving bad guy.

I have yet to meet such a person as the one you apparently believe in who pursues vast power for softhearted reasons. The closest I've ever heard of, I guess, would be someone Lord Acton might have had in mind when he wrote (in a letter to Mandell Creighton): "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." But I'm damned if I know who that pre-power saint might have been.

Back to frames. Rather than framing this as me being enamored of tyranny, I prefer a frame I read from George Smith.

If the only choice someone gives me is to cut off my leg or cut off my head, I'll keep my head. Now here's my addition. If I can get away with my leg, I'll take that, too. That's my frame for supporting Trump. I get to keep my head and my leg.

With the other candidates, I either lose my head, my leg, or both.

This has nothing to do with liking tyranny, as you imply.

Just because I'm having fun, especially lampooning those interested in my leg and head, that doesn't mean I like the choice.

btw - I don't speak for the others you so cavalierly accuse of loving tyranny (in addition to Me the Moral Monster all of a sudden), but I believe many would agree with me.

Apropos, which part of me are you interested in cutting off and taking home, my leg or my head?

Michael

Wikipedia defines a tyrant thus: "A tyrant (Greek τύραννος, tyrannos), in its modern English usage, is an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution, or one who has usurped legitimate sovereignty."

Upthread, you state your love of Trump involves, inter alia, the following motivation: "I am not fighting for The Cause with Trump. I want him to have power. Raw naked political power, the kind where he gets to determine if the government kills people or lets them live, if the government confiscates their stuff or lets them keep it, if the government wrecks people's lives or not, if the government takes from some people, keeps most of the plunder and gives the rest to others."

This sounds like Nietzsche-with-a-Combover to me. I had thought we Randian-types were supposed to be against this sort of thing.

You are obviously not a Moral Monster, MSK--otherwise none of us would be here. This fact is what makes your position above so perplexing.

[william.scherk]

Putin was responsible for the deaths of countless dissident journalists

I feel certain that you could name four or five, right? Probably choked them with his bare hands.

Are you suggesting that Putin is a Saint ?

I don't know anything about Russia under Putin.

That doesn't sound right. If Wolf had written, "Trump doesn't know anything about Russia under Putin," fair enough, we can investigate that and test the claim.

Freedom House: Freedom of the press in Russia 2015.

I get creeped out by Trump's byplay with Putin. I just don't know what it means. Listening back to the Republican debate on foreign policy ... and reviewing Trump's blurts and statements about Russia ... I don't get a sense of his cause, what Trump stands for in relation to the Russian entity. It gives me a weird feeling to think that Trump has not thought this through.

I am going to go hunt down where he is getting his foreign policy advice from on Russia. He might be an appeaser.. He might just be winging it, or like Wolf, blanking-out.

I was invited to Moscow and declined.

Putin invited you to Russia? Nice. Artful use of the passive voice, too. I was invited to Russia, too. I also declined. I was invited by a Kremlin Twitter Troll who thought I needed my ticket punched.

Back to dead journalists in Russia, of which Wolf knows nothing. He can keep his ignorance intact, but here is a link for those who are willing to push back the shadows.

Wolf, it is surprising you claim ignorance about the state of Russia. You opine on moral deviants, love, law, film, culture, politics, Objectivism and its queer destroyers, JARS, jars, personalities, philosophy, religion, history and ex-wives. I expect more.

Anyway, Trump on Russia, anyone? Questions, concerns, observations, links and commentary?

For extra fun and extra points in the popular game Blank-Out, the 2015 World Press Freedom Index.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Oops, I keep saying "Convention of the States."

It's actually "Convention of States."

Michael